UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4600
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ENRIQUE BARRAGAN CONTRERAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00231-2)
Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 19, 2006
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angela Parrott, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Enrique Barragan Contreras pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine
and 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. He was sentenced to 168
months in prison. On appeal, Barragan Contreras’s counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal
but raising the question of whether Barragan Contreras’s motion to
substitute counsel was properly denied. Barragan Contreras has
filed a pro se supplemental brief raising the following issues:
(1) whether the search of his home was proper, (2) whether his
sentence was properly enhanced for possession of a firearm, and
(3) whether the district court correctly calculated the amount of
marijuana attributable to him. We affirm.
Regarding the claim raised by counsel, while the court
initially denied Barragan Contreras’s motion to substitute counsel,
the court granted the motion when Barragan Contreras renewed it,
and he was appointed substitute counsel for sentencing. Barragan
Contreras does not allege any prejudice, and there is no indication
in the record that the denial of the first motion hindered his
defense. Accordingly, any error was harmless.
As to the pro se claims, claim one was waived by Barragan
Contreras’s guilty plea. Claim two was foreclosed by his plea
agreement. Finally, claim three is without merit. Even removing
- 2 -
all marijuana amounts from the calculated drug total would not have
changed Barragan Contreras’s offense level. Thus, any error was
harmless.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Barragan Contreras’s conviction and
sentence. We deny his motion to extend time to supplment his pro
se brief. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If the client requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a
copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -